Welcome Guest
You last visited January 18, 2017, 9:04 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Do some number combinations have better odds?

Topic closed. 5280 replies. Last post 4 years ago by rdgrnr.

 Page 202 of 353

United States
Member #48046
December 7, 2006
1699 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 2:26 pm - IP Logged

Jimmy4164

What exactly, ... did you used to do,

When you used to   'analyze'   everyones    MADDOG's

just  a question?

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 2:54 pm - IP Logged

Jimmy4164

What exactly, ... did you used to do,

When you used to   'analyze'   everyones    MADDOG's

just  a question?

I calculated the results each participant would have had if they had bought every combination of the [up to] 12 numbers they posted and compared their results to what the mathematical odds predicted would happen.  The thread is still there; go check it out.

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #48046
December 7, 2006
1699 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 3:06 pm - IP Logged

Yea, I checked it out,

Just wondering,    anyway  Sorry if  Off Subject again

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 5:55 pm - IP Logged

If it is truly random, then the odds can be accurately determined.

¿ΨΗΑΤ•ÌŠ•ΓΑñÐÓΜ?

http://www.random.org

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 7:11 pm - IP Logged

I calculated the results each participant would have had if they had bought every combination of the [up to] 12 numbers they posted and compared their results to what the mathematical odds predicted would happen.  The thread is still there; go check it out.

--Jimmy4164

12 numbers is too small of a sample size. Hitting 5 of 5 ONCE could take 5000 draws which is 46 years.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 7:15 pm - IP Logged

When PB hit a record \$588 million............

I was playing for 5 of 5 with almost 10 times BETTER ODDS than Boney was.

That is a fact that can NOT be disputed.........

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 7:35 pm - IP Logged

On average my self picks have 4 times BETTER ODDS than QPs.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 7:49 pm - IP Logged

Yup.  All this talk about "better odds" is hogwash because he can't figure out what his odds are until AFTER the drawing.  That's fairly useless for answering yes or no to this pie-in-the-sky question of "do some number combinations have better odds?"; he can't answer yes because the next logical question is "WHICH number combinations have better odds?", and no one can definitively answer that question.  The best Ronnie can do is guess, and even though he seems to be fairly good at that, it does nothing to address the original premise.  And it certainly doesn't make him a better person than Boney or anyone else, contrary to what he'd like us to believe.

Again, the only thing we've discovered here is that Ronnie has a knack for guessing some the winning numbers.  Good for you, Ronnie.  Whaddaya want, a medal?  Though it should be pointed out that because your wheels are so large, you're picking more losing numbers that winning numbers.  Not really all that impressive.  Also, you've admitted that you pull the numbers out of your ass, so it's not like there's a system that any of us can duplicate.  You want to impress us?  Hit a 5+0 or a 5+1 in real life.  Let's see a picture of you in the Lottery Post news section holding an oversized check from the Arizona Lottery.

My odds are way BETTER than your  mediabrat  If your so sure that what Im doing is "hogwash' please feel free to bring back your 175.000 QP lines per draw and stack then up against my 98,820 lines per draw ......

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 7:57 pm - IP Logged

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 8:14 pm - IP Logged

I didn't think anyone here had the mind set to ever buy a 50¢ pick3 ticket once a week, let alone every day.

The people here who are so adamantly against picking winning numbers don't even play the lottery.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 27, 2012, 8:16 pm - IP Logged

Does covering 4of5 with 39of59 mean you've given up trying to cover 5of5 with 28of39?

The odds are so long on PB........ I just play the 39 numbers for the fun of it.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 28, 2012, 12:22 am - IP Logged

I know what you're guessing, and what you're not guessing.  I wonder how many other readers here know too, but are, for some reason, afraid to admit it?  Oh well, here goes again...

Standard Deviation

In the spirit of the old adage "A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words," I offer the following to help lift the fog that seems to have settled on this thread.  Please excuse the use of * to produce this picture, and the rounding used to scale it.  It is based on the output of a Monte Carlo style computer simulation I wrote to show what randomness is capable of producing in the lottery world, using Pick-3 as the vehicle.

In words, the simulation is of 25,000 players buying Five(5) \$1.00 Straight Quick Pick tickets per day for Five(5) Years, or 1825 Days. The payoff is \$500 when they win.  Somewhat arbitrarily, I chose to start each player on day 1 with a "Stake" of \$9125.00, which allows them to lose every bet they make over the five years without having to borrow from their friends.

Each row in the output below represents a subset of the 25,000 people whose results were the same.

In each row, the 3 numerical columns represent:

Win    The amount in \$ left to the players in their subset at the end of the five years
ROI    The Return On Investment of the people in their subset ==> (100*(Win - 9125) / 9125)
#        The number of people in the subset.  (The summation of all rows is 25,000)

*        Each asterisk represents 27 people in its respective row.  You will notice roundoff error
which resulted from scaling to avoid distorting the "picture" through wrap around.  It's not
really important, since the scale used here is fine enough to show you what's going on.
The most obvious roundoff errors are in the "tails" of the distribution.  For example, 35
people (out of the 25,000) ended up with \$500 at the end of the five years.  35 divided by
27 is ~1.3, which rounds off to 1.  Thus 1 * in the 2nd row.

Study these results for a while, and then look below for further discussion. (2)

Win ROI   #
0 -100    3  *
500   -95   35  *
1000  -90   99  ***
1500  -84  311  ***********
2000  -79  765  ****************************
2500  -73 1426  ****************************************************
3000  -68 2171  ********************************************************************************
3500  -62 2958  *************************************************************************************************************
4000  -57 3176  *********************************************************************************************************************
4500  -51 3346  ***************************************************************************************************************************
5000  -46 3065  *****************************************************************************************************************
5500  -40 2551  **********************************************************************************************
6000  -35 1825  *******************************************************************
6500  -29 1318  ************************************************
7000  -24  823  ******************************
7500  -18  535  *******************
8000  -13  283  **********
8500    -7  152  *****
9000    -2   83  ***
9500     4   36  *
10000    9   21  *
10500   15    4  *
11000   20    8  *
11500   26    2  *
12000   31    1  *
13500   47    1  *
14000   53    1  *
15500   69    1  *
For our (practical) purposes, we can treat this distribution as Normal. The Mean(1) of the Win column is 4560, with a Standard Deviation of 1501.50.  As expected(approximately), the Mean ROI was 50.6 with a SD of 16.5.  So, about 76% of the 25,000 people ended up holding between \$3000 and \$6000.  Look above, and you can see what this looks like graphically.  But remember, they all started out with \$9125, so all of these 19,092 people were losers, losing between \$3125 and \$6125 over their 5 years of play.  Which brings us to the BIG losers, and, TA! TA!  The WINNERS!  Yes, randomness produces winners, even over long periods of time.  I'll let you peruse the data and absorb how many BIG losers there were, and how much they lost.  What I want you to play close attention to, though, is the small group of winners that resulted.  There were 75 people who ended up with more than the \$9125 they started out with!  But let's focus on the 18 people who ended up with from \$10,500 to \$15,500, representing gains from \$1375 through \$6375.  Now, let's use our imaginations for a minute.  Let's pretend that our Old Uncle Craig was the sole person out of the 25,000 who ended up with \$15,500, for a return on his investment of 69%  Let's assume further that he had devised a "System" for playing Pick-3 prior to the 5 years of play described above.

Here is the most important part of this posting!  If Old Uncle Craig doesn't know anything about Means and Standard Deviations, or doesn't "Believe" they apply to flying lottery ping pong balls, DO YOU THINK ANYONE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO CONVINCE HIM THAT HIS WINNINGS WERE MERELY THE RESULT OF THE LUCK OF THE DRAW, OF RANDOMNESS?

(1) The Means and Std. Deviations mentioned here were calculated on 25,000 rows, so don't expect to get the same results from the data listed above.  This data is a summary, calculated to allow you to view the distribution.

(2)  I ran this simulation multple times, using different Random Number Generator Seeds, and the results were strikingly similar.

--Jimmy4164

P.S.
Boney526:
Since I've taken the time to write this program and present the results, I hope I can count on you to help explain it.

Anyone who has not yet posted in this thread:
If you understand this post, and agree with its conclusions, don't be bashful.  It would be wonderful to discover that there are others here besides Boney526 and myself who are not Fooled By Randomness!

I think I'm beginning to get some insight into the compensation schedule here.  When an intelligent rebuttal to a posting that challenges the belief in successful prediction of lottery outcomes is not easily composed, 2nd tier prizes must be awarded to those most punctual in pushing said posting out of sight.

Maybe the real brainpower at this sight is preoccupied with holiday activities.

Or, maybe they're busy trying to tweak their systems to push themselves closer to the right hand tail of the ROI distribution.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 28, 2012, 1:39 am - IP Logged

The people here who are so adamantly against picking winning numbers don't even play the lottery.

I'm actually quite for maximizing your value out of the lottery when you play.  That is - to play combinations that have a higher expected return.  I've already explained how that's possible, even if you can't beat the games edge completely - and how it's really only possible to any significant degree in parimutual games.  And of course, it's impossible for flat payout games.

Your claim that you had 10 times better odds has been refuted, and you claim it as fact.  It clearly isn't, but you don't see the signficance of what anybody who refutes anything about better odds says.  At very worst, if you tried to understand that math AND you were right - you'd still be better off for it.  So you should probably stop putting words in our mouths and start listening, but that's up to you.

You can lead a horse to water, but can't force it to drink.  But that's why I haven't posted in a day or two, and probably won't again for a while.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 28, 2012, 9:26 am - IP Logged

I think I'm beginning to get some insight into the compensation schedule here.  When an intelligent rebuttal to a posting that challenges the belief in successful prediction of lottery outcomes is not easily composed, 2nd tier prizes must be awarded to those most punctual in pushing said posting out of sight.

Maybe the real brainpower at this sight is preoccupied with holiday activities.

Or, maybe they're busy trying to tweak their systems to push themselves closer to the right hand tail of the ROI distribution.

Im not sure???? But the "right hand tail" sounds like a plausible experimental option......

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: December 28, 2012, 9:28 am - IP Logged

Is this what people sound like when they feel sorry for themselves because they cant pick winning numbers?

 Page 202 of 353